ITC pushes final decision on Samsung claim against Apple back to February 6th

The ITC in the U.S. has delayed the final ruling on Samsung's complaint against Apple until February 6th from the original January 14th date. Judge James Gildea's preliminary decision found Apple not guilty of infringing on four Samsung patents. The judge said that one of the patents was invalid while at least two of the remaining three patents were standards-essential and eligible for FRAND licensing. Apple said in court that Samsung never mentioned any patent infringement until the Korean based tech giant was warned about its possible infringement of Apple patents. As a result, Apple argued that Samsung's claim against it was merely being used as a bargaining chip. While the judge agreed with Apple's assessment of Samsung's patent claims against it, he rejected Apple's defense that it would have been willing to license the patents had they been proven to be valid.

Samsung suddenly dropped all of its FRAND related sales injunction claims in Europe, seeking to avoid a high fine by the EC that could have been in the billions. This change led Apple to file a "Notice of New Facts," which details Samsung's decision to drop its request for an injunction in Europe, to avoid sanctions. Apple's filing might have led the ITC to delay winding up the case until it can take a deeper look at Samsung's actions. When the final ruling is made, it can be appealed to the U.S. Federal Court.

With third party tech companies filing briefs to the ITC about how FRAND licensing should be handles, perhaps some new standards will result including a set royalty on FRAND patents. Samsung and Motorola have sought licensing fees in the 2% range while Apple and Microsoft have said that this is too high.

You keep saying that. Care to explain why you can't put a price on fair and reasonable? By definition, you can put a price on it - the same price that every one else is paying.

What you mean is Apple should not have to pay anything for the tech that their devices world not work without, but should be paid handsomely for things like basic geometric shapes. You think FRAND stands for Free is Reasonable if Apple Needs it for Devices.

Kind of a weird defense.
Oh the patents we aren't paying for are standard essential ones. If the patent is deemed standard essential, why not discuss a rate and tell the other to pay it if they intend to use it?

We'll know when the dust settles. Personally I'd like to see apple, and Sammy squash this and get on with biz. Sammy's becoming just as suit happy as apple is, and I didn't think that was possible. These suits hurt tech.

Yeah, agreed, it's kinda' hard to imagine another company being as vicious, nasty or as miserable as that fruitful company of yours' but, I guess that's the world we live in: do onto others as they do onto you; do or die; AnniHiLate the competition before they annihilate you...... yeah, pretty much sums it up!

Exactly bro... It's gone so far beyond that now that's its not even important. These two giants, who r the best n the field have taken design q's from each other, that much is obvious. It's time to put an end to this, cuz personally I love Sammy and apple, and will continue to use both... TRUCE.

Ok, so first off there's no such thing as a "FRAND Patent." There are Standard Essential Patents which an industry categorizes as eligible for Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. The term FRAND Patent gets thrown around rather loosely here.

What is really upsetting and unnerving is how these judges are coming to these conclusions. Logic would dictate if one would need to make a ruling on a FRAND situation, the court would request that said offender provide documentation of licensing agreements with other companies. The plaintiff in this matter would then also need to provide the licensing agreement presented to them by the offending company. If licensing for both are similar, then case dismissed, licensing must be paid. If it is egregious, then the offending company is fined.

All content (phone reviews, news, specs, info), design and layouts are Copyright 2001-2015 phoneArena.com. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited! Privacy . Terms of use . Cookies . Team